forestofclarity

How would you discriminate between such practices? The FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) never ends, in my experience. There's always another practice, lineage, initiation, etc. Even learning a short practice takes time away from other things/practices. Things are seldom as simple and clean as our conceptual mind would have us believe. Everything is on a spectrum, it is not all or nothing. Even something as simple as concentration can be presented in a way that is more or less conducive to less conditioned practices. Building up a foundation for one thing can tear down a foundation for something else.

Well, some people may already be involved in Nei Gong already. COVID has really increased the availability of teachings. Great question. I have a similar question regarding conditioned/unconditioned practices. It seems the more you do one, the tougher the other one gets.

On the other hand, a lot of people like to engrain their value system into the Dao, God, the truth, etc.

It is strange how those lessons can shift. Suffering is always a challenge. One of the reasons I got into Buddhism was that it was pretty up front with suffering--- it didn't try to explain it or sugar coat. It's right there, the very first Noble Truth--- the truth of suffering. It is so raw, so primal, so beyond comprehension. Initially, it was suffering that brought me to the path. Then, suffering was the motivation for practice. But currently, I have realized we are all suffering, just in different ways. And what really unites us is the wish to be free. And knowing these are universal experiences, this gives rise to universal compassion. It is really hard to hate anyone knowing that, like me, they suffer and wish to be free. And if they were really free from suffering, they would be so beautiful. May your suffering bear something useful for your path.

I don't see how insight can be measured with tests. If anything, tests would measure physical/energetic transformation or power, but all of this would remain on the relative or material realm. At some point, I suppose it cannot be discussed since I presume the tests are secret. And of course, many stories can be spun. A Christian might see siddhis as the work of the devil. To give an example: when dreaming, one can realize that one is dreaming or not. However, this realization itself does not necessarily confer any dream powers--- the power to fly or put one's hand through the wall. Nor does flying or putting one's hand through the wall indicate that one realizes one is dreaming. Of course, it is easier to develop powers while one is lucid, but these are not necessarily the same thing.

Not sure about that. The Samye debate seems to suggest that the Indian gradualists were faced with the Chinese non-gradualists, and defeated them, yet you still have Mahamudra and Dzogchen. There is something parallel with these teachings and Daoism, at least to me. But I'm no scholar. Maybe for you, but different teachers have different approaches.

I mean mostly talking about post-death states. The only thing I've heard is about the 6 realms. You get this in Buddhism also. There's the yogis and the panditas. The yogis won't teach what they haven't accomplished. The panditas will discourse on everything under the sun. You can see this with the Tibetan bardo type teachings as well. Some people who have more experience with dying people are better at tracking it. Is there anything you can share?

I'm curious, because based on what I've heard, Daoists have largely taken the Buddhist ideas and modified them. Tibetan Buddhists tend to ground their teaching on the experiences of people who have nearly died, who have recalled their past lives, and who have the ability to travel to post-death realms (i.e. delogs). Interestingly, if you look at the actual testimony, it seldom conforms as nicely to the traditional view. This is especially the case with non-religious children who recall past lives--- there is a lack of the karmic causality between one's life and rebirth (i.e. people who die as robbers and murderers are reborn as humans). Just curious how the Daoists ground this, and whether there is a brief overview or commentary generally available. https://www.scholarsage.com/series-3-9-meditation-vs-qigong/

"Experience" is another way to say awareness. If there is experience, if there is knowing, if there is anything at all (even a blank void, or nothingness, etc.) this is all arising in awareness. Usually when people talk about going "beyond" awareness, they mean some sort of reified state of consciousness. Even in the link you provided, the person talks about a "perspective" beyond consciousness. The word "perspective" implies awareness, so this is just playing word games. Usually people confuse a "sense" of awareness or a "state" of consciousness with awareness (even here, the so-called "Supreme Reality" is a "sense of Being Consciousness or Self"). If it has a sense, a feeling, a flavor or anything graspable at all, no matter how subtle, it is an arising.

This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of "absolute awareness" in my mind. The sort of awareness talked about doesn't have form, boundaries, or limits.

It is important to understand that non-duality has many meanings and expressions, according to not only the tradition but the understanding of the teacher. For instance, it could be argued that physical materialists are non-dualistic in that everything reduces to matter. But there is also non-reductionistic non-dualism, and Buddhist type non-dualism which points to "beyond extremes" rather than some sort of monism. Generalizations of course have their place, but often they tend to be broader than the data points should allow. That's not necessarily true-- different versions have "creation stories," such as recorded in Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds.

I don't think people mean the same thing when they say "mind" or "awareness."

I know exactly how deluded everyone is. The more they disagree with me, the more deluded they are.

How do you know? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

To evaluate all paths, one needs to be a Buddha or Dr. Strange:

It is a balance: too many concepts and people get mired in thought; not enough and people lack direction. I always struggled with Zen, which seemed to assume that one could cease conceptualizing just as one can choose to no longer wear red clothing. Tibetan Buddhism often has the opposite problem. What do you mean? It is a start, but certainly not an end in my mind. Well, they do, but writings are only part of the story. A lot of the tradition is oral. The writings usually provide a framework or the bones of the teaching. But the oral teachings keep it alive and fresh. In addition, there are different teachings for people at different levels.

Non-conceptuality is a concept, so see you've reified it, and in so doing have missed the vital point. As stated in the Mulamadhyamakakaria: And let us not forget the Dharani of Entering into Nonconceptuality: Yes, that was a joke.

For me, it strikes me as a bit of hubris. Classically, many people left their homes and life and practiced full time for many, many years, often enduring incredible hardships. To think that in the modern day, with the internet and far less effort, people have met and exceeded the realization of Ramana Maharshi, Shakarcharya, Swami Vivekananda, etc. strikes me as hollow and in bad faith. If that were even partially so, then certainly their posts would be modern spiritual classics, as they exceed the scriptures and commentary of an entire tradition. And do we think if these people were alive today, they'd be spending all their time compiling quotes and arguing on the Daobums? There are a few issues at play. One is the use of similar terms, but the meaning changes and becomes more refined over time as one progresses. Accordingly, the Self may be initially presented in a gross way, and that concept is often refined until it is exhausted. But some one can easily take initial or intermediate teachings on the Self and mistake them for final realization. The term I have heard for this is mistaking the tail of a snake for the dragon. The other issue is that teachings, especially written ones, take the form of concepts. A lot of people like to dismiss any teaching as "too conceptual," comparing any conceptual teaching to (an often imaginary) non-conceptual realization. Any statement can be deconstructed in this manner, leaving only an ambiguous silence that can mean anything. For these and other reasons, it becomes indispensable to have a teacher more realized than oneself as a guide (unless you are, say, a lineage starting spiritual genius), which is what every tradition says.

I don't think either actually worked in a Vedantic tradition, however, or had their "realization" confirmed by a lineage master (in either tradition as far as I know).

I've always wondered about the interaction of plants and human consciousness. Certain mind altering plants, like cannabis and mushrooms, seem to exert an effect or control over many people not unlike spiritual possession. For instance, plenty of people who smoke cannabis also wear a lot of hemp, have cannabis T shirts, posters, etc. There is an entire cannabis culture. I enjoy a good whiskey, but I would never have whiskey shirts, posters, hats, attend whiskey musical conferences, etc.

From a certain Buddhist perspective, reification would include any "is" "this" or "that." Not that such reifications are not helpful at a certain point, but the Buddhist path is in my opinion one of radical non-grasping from the start. A monk asked, ‘Master, why do you say that mind is Buddha?’ Mazu said, ‘To stop babies from crying.’ The monk said, ‘What do you say when they stop crying?’ Mazu said, ‘No mind, no Buddha.’ The monk asked, ‘Without using either of these teachings, how would you instruct someone?’ Mazu said, ‘I would say to him that it’s not a thing.’ The monk asked, ‘If suddenly someone who was in the midst of it came to you, then what would you do?’ Mazu said, ‘I would teach him to experience the great way.’

Of course, many also reify clarity into a self. It can be a tricky balance, often requiring a lot of teacher input.

After a long hiatus, I have been considering taking up qigong again. As it turns out, B.K. Frantzis has moved into my area. His center is offering ongoing classes with senior instructors. Has anyone worked with B.K. Frantzis or one of his instructors long term? Thoughts? I am primarily looking for qigong work to supplement my meditation/dream yoga practices.

Try to insert a practice session when. You get up. Then if you can, another after digesting supper. I get work time for the gym, so that helps. I have lost most of my worldly and spiritual ambition though, so probably don’t listen to me.

True. Scott Adams (yes, the one from Dilbert) came onto Sam Harris' podcast to discuss Trump (which he was very pro) and made a very interesting observation. People liked Trump not because he told the truth, but told a story that they felt was true, i.e. "emotional truths." This has really opened my eyes in many ways--- truth is now arbitrated by feeling. You can see this in spiritual teachings where folks don't do practices, they just adopt "what resonates."